Allowed

Muhammed Shareef v. State of Kerala

Kerala HC26 Mar 2018Crl.MC/1619/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Kerala quashed criminal proceedings against the petitioner alleging theft of modesty. The court observed the dispute was settled, the complainant revealed mistaken identity and marriage, and invoked inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to allow the petition.

What did the court decide?

The criminal proceedings in S.C.No.155 of 2017 arising from Crime No.834 of 2013 were quashed.

Muhammed Shareef Vs State of Kerala — Quashing and FIR | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL THOMAS

¶4

MONDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2018 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1940

¶5

Crl.MC.No. 1619 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN SC 155/2014 of ADDL. DISTRICT COURT, MANJERI CRIME NO. 834/2013 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION , MALAPPURAM

¶7

PETITIONER(S)/ACCUSED:

¶8

MUHAMMED SHAREEF S/O. MUHAMMED, AGED 25 YEARS, KONDADAN HOUSE, PANDIKASALA, VENGARA, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.K.P.SUDHEER

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/STATE & DEFACTO COMPLAINANT:

¶11

1. STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY ITS PUBLIC PORSECUTOR, HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM, REPRESENTING SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE, TANUR POLICE STATION, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676302.

¶12

2. SUMANA SULTHANA AGED 20 YEARS, D/O SAJITHA, MANNINGAL HOUSE, MANNIL PILAKKAL, KOORIYAD POST, KANNAMANGALAM, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-676 306.

¶13

R2 BY ADV. SRI.ARUN MATHEW VADAKKAN

¶14

R BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR:SRI AMJAD ALI

¶15

THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 26-03-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶16

Crl.MC.No. 1619 of 2018 ()

¶17

APPENDIX

¶18

PETITIONER(S)' EXHIBITS

¶19

ANNEXURE A1 CERTIFIED COPY OF THE FIRST INFORMATION REPORT DATED 15.12.2013 IN CRIME NO. 834/2013 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION.

¶20

ANNEXURE A2 CERTIFIED COPY OF FINAL REPORT DATED 28.2.2014 IN CRIME NO. 834/2013 OF VENGARA POLICE STATION.

¶21

ANNEXURE A3 AFFIDAVIT DATED 26.02.2018 EXECUTED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT.

¶22

RESPONDENTS EXHIBITS:NIL

¶23

True Copy / P A to Judge

¶24

SUNIL THOMAS, J.

¶25

=================

¶26

Crl.M.C.No.1619 of 2018

¶27

=================

¶28

Dated this the 26^th day of March, 2018

¶29

ORDER

¶30

Petitioner herein is arrayed as the sole accused in

¶31

S.C.No.155 of 2017 on the files of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Manjeri arising from Crime No.834 of 2013 of Vengara Police Station. It was alleged by the prosecution that, on 18.11.2013, at about 11.50p.m., petitioner herein broke open the back door of the house of the defacto complainant, stealthily entered into the house and tried to outrage the modesty of the defacto complainant. When she objected, he ran away from the spot. Thereafter, crime was registered and after investigation, final report was filed. The matter is pending consideration before the court below. In the meanwhile, parties are stated to have resolved their dispute.

¶32

According to the second respondent, she has now married and has given birth to a child. She stated that, she gave the complaint on the basis of a mistake of fact and on the basis of the mistaken identity of the accused. According to her, name of

¶33

Crl.M.C.1619/18

¶34

¶35

the accused was furnished based on hearsay evidence. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, an affidavit has been affirmed by the defacto complainant and produced as Annexure-A3. Learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the second respondent submitted that, they have no objection in quashing the proceedings in the light of the settlement. It is submitted that the second respondent was abroad and her mother has given a statement reiterating the settlement.

¶36

It appears that the allegation against the petitioner herein is serious. Still, the question of identity arises. Since the defacto complainant has now completely taken a turn and has given a go-bye to the prosecution case, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to establish the case against the petitioner herein. It also appears that the second respondent wants to give a quietus to the entire dispute to forget the incident. Having considered his, I feel that, petitioner herein may be given an opportunity to improve himself and he will take care that he does not get involved in any other crime. Having considered this, I am inclined to invoke the jurisdiction under section 482 Cr.P.C to quash the criminal proceedings.

¶37

Crl.M.C.1619/18

¶38

¶39

In the result, Crl.M.C is allowed. All further proceedings in S.C.No.155 of 2017 on the files of Additional District and Sessions Judge, Manjeri arising from Crime No.834 of 2013 of Vengara Police Station will stand quashed.

¶40

Sd/-

¶41

SUNIL THOMAS Judge

¶42

Sbna/26/3/18

¶43

True Copy / P A to Judge

Muhammed Shareef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Muhammed Shareef v. State of Kerala

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sanoop Vs State of Kerala

Ullas Vs State of Kerala

Hashim Vs State of Kerala

Suhaib Vs State of Kerala

Salman Fareeq Vs the Sub Inspector of Police

Hassan Kutty Vs State of Kerala